|
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathf inder Society Organized Play is to
provide an enjoyable experience for as many players
as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a
session. While killing another character might seem
like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s
player. Even if you feel killing another character is in
character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express
herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your
character to kill another character—ever. Note that
this does not apply to situations where your character
is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a
fellow Pathfinder.
*emphasis mine*
In researching this issue...
It states "you can NEVER voluntarily KILL another character". So, perhaps that needs to be changed to "INJURE" another character. Or maybe it needs to include language that includes non-damaging affects as well.
Under current text, it would seem that you should allow collateral, or even intentional damage between characters unless said damage would result in the PC's death. While probably accurate with a strict reading of the rules, I think that we can agree it is NOT the intent of the rule.
The resolution of affects that are out of your control (involuntary) is clear...they are permitted. So whether it's a Confusion effect, a Wild Raging character, or something else, it IS permitted under play. However, I think most agree that it is not in the best interest of the PFS and should be banned.
No Player-versus-Player Combat
The goal of Pathf inder Society Organized Play is to
provide an enjoyable experience for as many players
as possible. Player-versus-player conflict only sours a
session. While killing another character might seem
like fun to you, it certainly won’t be for that character’s
player. Even if you feel killing another character is in
character for your PC at this particular moment, just figure out some other way for your character to express
herself. In short, you can never voluntarily use your
character to kill another character—ever. Note that
this does not apply to situations where your character
is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a
fellow Pathfinder.*emphasis mine*
In researching this issue...
It states "you can NEVER voluntarily KILL another character". So, perhaps that needs to be changed to "INJURE" another character. Or maybe it needs to include language that includes non-damaging affects as well.
Under current text, it would seem that you should allow collateral, or even intentional damage between characters unless said damage would result in the PC's death. While probably accurate with a strict reading of the rules, I think that we can agree it is NOT the intent of the rule.
The resolution of affects that are out of your control (involuntary) is clear...they are permitted. So whether it's a Confusion effect, a Wild Raging character, or something else, it IS permitted under play. However, I think most agree that it is not in the best interest of the PFS and should be banned.
That was magnanimous. I think we actually agree on this issue that if the intent is that "you can never voluntarily injure another character", that the rule should be changed to that text.
/Looking out the window for the sky to turn black.../
|
There have been scenarios with Confusion used by NPCs/monsters.
As far as Confusion-like affects, I do not recall any NPC/monsters in scenarios that employed such tactics. But if they have, I suppose we need to clarify that as well (or ensure they never appear in scenarios).
Absolutely correct. And in fact, the GtoP 4.0 already takes care of these occasions.
Note that this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.
Being under the effects of Confusion constitute as a mind-control. Hell, if you're going to go on a crusade, then go ahead and ban Mists of Mwangi because there is a potential that a PC will kill another PC because he failed his original save, he's confused, and has a 25% each round of having to attack a PC for as long as he's confused. Not to mention the 10-15+ other scenarios that employ this tactic.
/edit: I hate ninjas!
It certainly turned very cold 'round here. I think I'm about to be visited by an entitly from Cania
Somehow, I'm thinking about Neil Shackleton showing up at your door.
"How ya doin, eh? I'm Neil. From Canada. Oh. /looks at paper in his hand/ /Reads slowly/ er, Cania. Never mind!"
|
|
Also, I'm completely against the banning of the Wild Rager archetype because majority of these "what if" situations of killing of PCs don't apply most of the time.
So let's look at the text of the wild rager and see what all the fuss is about.
A wild rager's rage functions as normal, except that when she reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points, she must attempt a Will save (DC 10 + the barbarian's level + the barbarian's Charisma modifier) or become confused. For the remainder of her current turn, she attacks the nearest creature other than herself. On the following round, refer to the confusion spell (Core Rulebook 258) to determine her actions.
At level 1 if the barbarian downs a creature, guess what? He has no more attacks to make and therefore will follow the affects of the confusion spell. This means, on the next round and subsequent rounds, a barbarian has a 25% chance of attacking the nearest (N)PC until he makes the save to end the effect. And this is perfect role-playing opportunity for PCs to role a Sense Motive check (I think this constitutes a DC 15) to know that something just doesn't quite look right in the eyes of the barbarian. This pretty much gives the PCs a round to figure out how to handle the situation.
Now, you could be asking about what to do when the barbarian hits level 2 and gets an extra attack if doing a full-round attack from the "Wild Fighting" power. But remember, he has to declare he's doing a full-round attack prior to starting his attacks, so you do have that warning. And the good news is he can't take a 5 foot step between his attacks in case he downs an NPC during the first attack (unless he takes a certain feat that escapes me right now). So what does this mean? Don't stand within reach (or a 5 foot step on subsequent turns) of a wild rager barbarian and you'll be just fine. And because of that, he falls into the same trap as before and still only has a 25% chance of wanting to attack someone on each subsequent round.
At higher levels, I don't think archetype is as much of a concern because everyone isn't so squishy and there will be even more ways to deal with a wild rager. You have to consider that the barbarian, at higher levels, isn't always going to be getting the last swing on an opponent, because you'll have plenty of other folks doing high damage.
And yeah, at any level you could be killed by a charging crit from a wild rager because he rolled 76-100 and you were the closest thing to him, but could be easily killed by another non-wild rager barbarian charging crit under the effects of a confusion spell with the exact same conditions. Confusion is a legit tactic that many baddies in PFS employ (and is smart to use it against classes with known low will saves!).
/TLDR "wild rager" archetype is not as deadly as people dream him to be
//Makes me sort of sad, actually
|
That still doesn't cover a situation where you have a choice: Injure another PC to hurt an enemy, or let the PC die.
Example: PC is standing in a square and is joined in that square by a swarm of diminuative creatures.
The only things that can hurt this swarm is an AoE of some type.
So, do you let your com[patriot die, or do you hit the swarm with ALchemical Fire or Burning Hands, doing collateral damage to your compatriot?
That is why it is kill, not injure.
And, again, unless teh rogue is injured, he will probably allow his Wizard/Sorcerior compatriot to include him in an AoE with a Reflex save, since there is a good chance that he won't take any damage at akll from it. And that one is even ifier, since it might not even fall under the auspices of even injuring an ally...
|
|
At level 1 if the barbarian downs a creature, guess what? He has no more attacks to make and therefore will follow the affects of the confusion spell. This means, on the next round and subsequent rounds, a barbarian has a 25% chance of attacking the nearest (N)PC until he makes the save to end the effect. And this is perfect role-playing opportunity for PCs to role a Sense Motive check (I think this constitutes a DC 15) to know that something just doesn't quite look right in the eyes of the barbarian. This pretty much gives the PCs a round to figure out how to handle the situation.
And, at first level, there will be no real warning, IC, to the party that the Barb is acting odd. And no reason that a 5' step would limit his attacks, since he only gets one, so closest is going to be very important.
Now, you could be asking about what to do when the barbarian hits level 2 and gets an extra attack if doing a full-round attack from the "Wild Fighting" power. But remember, he has to declare he's doing a full-round attack prior to starting his attacks, so you do have that warning. And the good news is he can't take a 5 foot step between his attacks in case he downs an NPC during the first attack (unless he takes a certain feat that escapes me right now). So what does this mean? Don't stand within reach (or a 5 foot step on subsequent turns) of a wild rager barbarian and you'll be just fine. And because of that, he falls into the same trap as before and still only has a 25% chance of wanting to attack someone on...
Excuse me, but how do you come up with an inability to take a 5' step?
According to core rules, taking a 5' step during a full attack action is explicitly allowed...
As to crits at high levels, a falchion (or similar 18-20 crit range) with Keen or Improved Critical means that one shots for a Wild rager could become more common, not less.
|
|
That still doesn't cover a situation where you have a choice: Injure another PC to hurt an enemy, or let the PC die.
Example: PC is standing in a square and is joined in that square by a swarm of diminuative creatures.
The only things that can hurt this swarm is an AoE of some type.
So, do you let your com[patriot die, or do you hit the swarm with ALchemical Fire or Burning Hands, doing collateral damage to your compatriot?
That is why it is kill, not injure.
And, again, unless teh rogue is injured, he will probably allow his Wizard/Sorcerior compatriot to include him in an AoE with a Reflex save, since there is a good chance that he won't take any damage at akll from it. And that one is even ifier, since it might not even fall under the auspices of even injuring an ally...
This would still be covered by a clause that would allow the recipient player to CHOOSE to allow the collateral damage to occur.
The issue here is that normally, you cannot 100% prevent an opponent from using Confusion on your barbarian, hence the involuntary rule. But a player CHOOSING to play a character that has good likely hood of being forced to attack, and potentially kill a party member, is bad form in OP, IMO.
|
|
And, at first level, there will be no real warning, IC, to the party that the Barb is acting odd. And no reason that a 5' step would limit his attacks, since he only gets one, so closest is going to be very important.
False. There is a warning because the other PCs can make Sense Motive checks. And it actually doesn't matter because after the one attack, used to down take down the enemy, he has no other actions but maybe a maybe a move or a 5 foot step. But he has no other attacks at 1st level during this round. On the subsequent round, he is then under the affects of the confusion spell, which means he only has a 25% chance of attacking the nearest (N)PC.
Excuse me, but how do you come up with an inability to take a 5' step?
According to core rules, taking a 5' step during a full attack action is explicitly allowed...
As to crits at high levels, a falchion (or similar 18-20 crit range) with Keen or Improved Critical means that one shots for a Wild rager could become more common, not less.
My mistake (thought you couldn't take a 5 foot step in between attacks in a full-attack action), but it still doesn't matter. And at high levels one shots become less common because folks have more HP / more things at their disposal to deal with the situation.
/Hands typing faster than I think sometimes.
|
|
Warning or not, I still think its bad form for a player to choose a character that WILL attack party members and potentially kill them. The fact that its only a 25% chance per round is not really relevent. If the Wild Rager rolls that 25% chance for four consecutive rounds, it's a 100% chance that he's attacking me. Does that mean I get to attack him back or is that PvP? This just isn't what I'm looking for in OP.
|
|
Warning or not, I still think its bad form for a player to choose a character that WILL attack party members and potentially kill them. The fact that its only a 25% chance per round is not really relevent. If the Wild Rager rolls that 25% chance for four consecutive rounds, it's a 100% chance that he's attacking me. Does that mean I get to attack him back or is that PvP? This just isn't what I'm looking for in OP.
And I don't think the statistical likelihood of that happening is that prevalent, especially since a barbarian is not guaranteed to drop every enemy during every single encounter (as well as raging during all those encounters). Also, 25% chance per round is very relevant, especially in your example. For that to happen, it would have to be assumed you do nothing for 4 rounds and just sit there and take the hits because you're the nearest thing around (although why you wouldn't be running or full-round withdrawl is beyond me). Secondly, in order for that 25% chance to come up 4 consecutive times, that's a 1/16 (6.25%) chance of happening. And I'd say attacking him back is not PvP, and doing non-lethal is an even better idea (so when he drops his drop in Con won't kill him). Just treat it exactly as if an NPC is mind-controlling him.
Is there a potential from abuse? Yes, but I believe there are many situations that we haven't even spoken about that would fall in the same category with about the same likelihood of abuse. But the thing is, no one has experienced this situation in play, it's all based on hypotheticals and a negative perception being carried over from a different game (I mean, everyone has referred to 3.5, but no one has even done an analysis if the wording is similar - which I think would add a lot of weight behind enforcing pre-conceived negative opinions people have). But as it stands, I feel all the hubbub about this archetype falls more into the chicken little category.
/I would be very interested to read the class from 3.5 and see how similar it is to this wild rager if someone can point me in the right direction.
|
|
In short, you can never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever. Note that
this does not apply to situations where your character is mind-controlled by an NPC and forced to attack a fellow Pathfinder.*emphasis mine*
In researching this issue...
It states "you can NEVER voluntarily KILL another character". So, perhaps that needs to be changed to "INJURE" another character. Or maybe it needs to include language that includes non-damaging affects as well.
Under current text, it would seem that you should allow collateral, or even intentional damage between characters unless said damage would result in the PC's death. While probably accurate with a strict reading of the rules, I think that we can agree it is NOT the intent of the rule.
The resolution of affects that are out of your control (involuntary) is clear...they are permitted. So whether it's a Confusion effect, a Wild Raging character, or something else, it IS permitted under play. However, I think most agree that it is not in the best interest of the PFS and should be banned.
If I'm reading this right, I think it needs to stay as "voluntarily kill" another character. I've seen a few instances where wizard is going to cast Color Spray and it's going to hit a PC. The players talk and the player of the PC that's going to be hit say's it's OK. For me, that's fine. If in another situation the party rogue is in the AoE for a Fireball, the two players agree that the fireball is the right thing to do. Then bad things happen, the rogue player rolls all 1s and the wizard player rolls all 6s. Rogue dies. That's not good but I still kind of see that as within the spirit of the rule.
PvP is one player doing something that will knowing cause another player not to have fun at the table.
Side Note: Actually, if I see any PvP I think I'll just call 911. It's only a game and if it breaks down to Player vs. Player combat, (as apposed to PC vs. PC) I think someone is taking it too seriously.
-Swiftbrook
Oh it's past my bedtime
|
No better way to beat the big bad guy than to run up to him and throw the whole necklace at your feet! Big fun!So they can pick it back up and use it against you? Having that work is highly GM dependent since the wording on the item describes the beads working after they are detached.
Hit yourself with a magical fire attack and voluntarily fail the save ;-)
Hit yourself with a magical fire attack and voluntarily fail the save ;-)No better way to beat the big bad guy than to run up to him and throw the whole necklace at your feet! Big fun!So they can pick it back up and use it against you? Having that work is highly GM dependent since the wording on the item describes the beads working after they are detached.
That should do nicely.
Or simply rip off one, and throw it at your feet - voluntarily failing the save for the rest of the necklace.
|
|
Frenzied Berserker is in Complete Warrior, page 34.
To be honest, Wild Rager seems like a Paizoized version of the Frenzied Berserker. Lots of similarities, from what I can see.
They reduced some of the drawbacks, and changed, slightly, the major drawback, but there is a strong similarity between the two.
The build is a bad ideas, either way, sicne you are ignoring some of the other, serious, downsides to the Wild Rager build:
Sure, it is only a 25% chance that he will attack in a COnfusion round, but that can be a bad thing, when there are more enemies left, and he is the parties only damage dealer....
Having your major source of damage stand around, twiddling his thumbs, is at least as likely to cause a TPK as him attacking a party member.
|
|
Frenzied Berserker is in Complete Warrior, page 34.
To be honest, Wild Rager seems like a Paizoized version of the Frenzied Berserker. Lots of similarities, from what I can see.
They reduced some of the drawbacks, and changed, slightly, the major drawback, but there is a strong similarity between the two.
The build is a bad ideas, either way, sicne you are ignoring some of the other, serious, downsides to the Wild Rager build:
Sure, it is only a 25% chance that he will attack in a COnfusion round, but that can be a bad thing, when there are more enemies left, and he is the parties only damage dealer....
Having your major source of damage stand around, twiddling his thumbs, is at least as likely to cause a TPK as him attacking a party member.
I would like to see at least some play testing in group settings of this class before giving it the ban hammer. There are enough differences between this and the 3.5 PrC to give a look at whether the stigma being applied to it is warranted through group playtesting.
I could just as easily decide, as a cleric, to sit around and not heal the party with positive channeling and cause a TPK as well. While that would likely get me a quick boot from the table for being a jerk, the results are none the less dire. But furthering that discussion, like most of what I've seen in regards to wild rager, is chasing rabbits down holes.
|
|
It certainly turned very cold 'round here. I think I'm about to be visited by an entitly from CaniaSomehow, I'm thinking about Neil Shackleton showing up at your door.
"How ya doin, eh? I'm Neil. From Canada. Oh. /looks at paper in his hand/ /Reads slowly/ er, Cania. Never mind!"
But at least I'd bring the beer, eh?
(The funny thing is, at least 5 Venture-Captains live further north than I do. Though I guess my region goes closest to Santa's house.)
It certainly turned very cold 'round here. I think I'm about to be visited by an entitly from CaniaSomehow, I'm thinking about Neil Shackleton showing up at your door.
"How ya doin, eh? I'm Neil. From Canada. Oh. /looks at paper in his hand/ /Reads slowly/ er, Cania. Never mind!"
But at least I'd bring the beer, eh?
(The funny thing is, at least 5 Venture-Captains live further north than I do. Though I guess my region goes closest to Santa's house.)
I used to (accurately for where I lived) refer to Canada as "our neighbor to the south".
I used to cross the border to go to parties at U Windsor all the time. Many many years ago. Driving back at 3am, it was always interesting when the Customs people wouldn't even stop you to ask questions, they'd just wave you through. Yeah, that's how long ago it was.
|
|
This means, on the next round and subsequent rounds, a barbarian has a 25% chance of attacking the nearest (N)PC until he makes the save to end the effect.
Please read the rules closely. The saving throw is VOLUNTARY. If the barbarian wants to continue to rage, he does not have to attempt to save versus confusion. No save means he doesn't have to worry about being fatigued and he gets another free round of rage.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
The build is a bad ideas, either way, sicne you are ignoring some of the other, serious, downsides to the Wild Rager build:
Sure, it is only a 25% chance that he will attack in a COnfusion round, but that can be a bad thing, when there are more enemies left, and he is the parties only damage dealer....
Having your major source of damage stand around, twiddling his thumbs, is at least as likely to cause a TPK as him attacking a party member.
True, but not accurate. A confused character will automatically attack someone who attacks him and also has a 25% chance to act normally (Barb Normal = Slaughter enemies). As long as your enemies are not clever enough to stand back, the rager will generally find an enemy to attack.
|
|
True, but not accurate. A confused character will automatically attack someone who attacks him and also has a 25% chance to act normally (Barb Normal = Slaughter enemies). As long as your enemies are not clever enough to stand back, the rager will generally find an enemy to attack.The build is a bad ideas, either way, sicne you are ignoring some of the other, serious, downsides to the Wild Rager build:
Sure, it is only a 25% chance that he will attack in a COnfusion round, but that can be a bad thing, when there are more enemies left, and he is the parties only damage dealer....
Having your major source of damage stand around, twiddling his thumbs, is at least as likely to cause a TPK as him attacking a party member.
So, an intelligent enemy is going to attack the threat, in other words the rest of the party, not the idiot barbarian standing there twiddling his thumbs and gibbering.
25% of the time, the Barbarian will act normally.
25% of the time he is going to babble incoherently.
25% of the time he is going to hurt himself.
25% of the time he will attack the nearest creature.
So, normally is good. But may still be sub-optimal, since there is a good chance that the barbarian won't have anyone near him, so he has to move and gets only a single attack.
Babble is bad. He has a good chance of not being able to do much in teh way of taking AoOs, given the provisions in the spell. As an intelligent enemy, even if he does get an AoO on me, I would probably move away, maybe even just withdraw from him.
Hurt himself? It adds his Str mod, so he could take himself out with as series of bad rolls. Any way you look at it, this is not good.
Attack nearest creature? Since he has already dropped the nearest enemy, this becomes highly situational.
As another player, I admit that I would be staying as far away from this character as possible. Nothing good can come from associating with him.
If he doesn't Rage, he gives up one of the strongest Barbarian class features, making him sub-optimal.
If he does Rage, he has the potential to basically go Nova on his nominal allies.
Maybe at a 7 player table, you can afford a Wild Rager, but at a 4 player table? Ugh. Just... ugh. In that case, the most likely creature to be closest to the Wild rager when (not if, but when) he drops an enemy, is whichever ally is either flanking with him (Rogue, maybe Fighter) or was just busy healing him (Can you say Cleric?)
|
|
Why are we even talking about the spell Confusion as if it's analogous? -- A Wild Rager who drops something, and who fails a will-save, is required to attack the next closest creature with the rest of his attacks until the end of the round. Not 25% of the time. 100% of the time. (He's then confused, per spell, next round.)
/TLDR "wild rager" archetype is not as deadly as people dream him to be
To whom? A WR who goes nuts and attacks his allies certainly won't appear deadly to the enemy.
|
|
Why are we even talking about the spell Confusion as if it's analogous? -- A Wild Rager who drops something, and who fails a will-save, is required to attack the next closest creature with the rest of his attacks until the end of the round. Not 25% of the time. 100% of the time. (He's then confused, per spell, next round.)/TLDR "wild rager" archetype is not as deadly as people dream him to beTo whom? A WR who goes nuts and attacks his allies certainly won't appear deadly to the enemy.
Joseph's acknowledged this. The point he's trying to make is that a level 1 barbarian only has 1 attack in a round, so if he's dropped a target, he physically can't attack anyone else that round. Unless he's two-weapon fighting, I suppose, but how many barbarians do you see doing that?
Furthermore, in order to make multiple attacks at later levels (when he has wild fighting) he must take the full attack action, and so can only attack a character who is within a 5 ft step of the enemy he just killed. If the players give the barbarian some space, that 100% chance can turn into a 0% chance of attacking an ally on the first round, and a 25% chance at most of attacking an ally on subsequent rounds.
Just to be clear about my stance on this archetype: I don't play one, I don't plan to play one, and I'll follow whatever Mark et al decide about it, be that banning or no. I will say that I have yet to meet the kind of 'griefing' player that people worry about using this archetype at any of the tables I have played or GMed, and that's quite a few tables.
|
|
Joseph's acknowledged this. The point he's trying to make is that a level 1 barbarian only has 1 attack in a round, so if he's dropped a target, he physically can't attack anyone else that round. Unless he's two-weapon fighting, I suppose, but how many barbarians do you see doing that?
A Wild Rager, at 2nd, every time:
Wild Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus....
Note that he's not limited to one-handed weapons, so he can klonk away with two-handers twice a round at second-level.
Furthermore, in order to make multiple attacks at later levels (when he has wild fighting) he must take the full attack action, and so can only attack a character who is within a 5 ft step of the enemy he just killed.Unless he's Enlarged with a polearm...then it's anybody up to 25' away.
If the players give the barbarian some space, that 100% chance can turn into a 0% chance of attacking an ally on the first round, and a 25% chance at most of attacking an ally on subsequent rounds.
He'll throw or shoot something with his extra attacks. (Wild Rager + Quickdraw + spare greatswords in Scabbards of Vigor = Run for your life!)
|
|
If the Wild Rager rolls that 25% chance for four consecutive rounds, it's a 100% chance that he's attacking me.No, with four chances at 25%, it's still only 68.4%.
The important concern is that a Wild Rager will be rolling will-saves every single time he drops something -- and that's going to be at least a dozen if not multiple dozens of times more often than a mod will target NPC-cast Confusion upon him.
|
|
Joseph's acknowledged this. The point he's trying to make is that a level 1 barbarian only has 1 attack in a round, so if he's dropped a target, he physically can't attack anyone else that round. Unless he's two-weapon fighting, I suppose, but how many barbarians do you see doing that?A Wild Rager, at 2nd, every time:
Wild Fighting (Ex): At 2nd level, even when not raging, wild ragers often fight with reckless, savage abandon. A wild rager using the full-attack action can make one extra attack per round at her highest base attack bonus....
Note that he's not limited to one-handed weapons, so he can klonk away with two-handers twice a round at second-level.
You will note that I clearly state 'a level 1 barbarian' in my quoted post. I am not disputing the multiple attacks the barbarian receives at higher levels.
Furthermore, in order to make multiple attacks at later levels (when he has wild fighting) he must take the full attack action, and so can only attack a character who is within a 5 ft step of the enemy he just killed.Unless he's Enlarged with a polearm...then it's anybody up to 25' away.If the players give the barbarian some space, that 100% chance can turn into a 0% chance of attacking an ally on the first round, and a 25% chance at most of attacking an ally on subsequent rounds.He'll throw or shoot something with his extra attacks. (Wild Rager + Quickdraw + spare greatswords in Scabbards of Vigor = Run for your life!)
OK, so now we're moving from 'a wild rager is a menace who should be banned' to 'a wild rager who is wielding a polearm and has somehow convinced his party wizard to enlarge him despite the obvious flaws in this plan and who also has Quick Draw and is willing to drop their two-handed melee weapon in the middle of a full attack in order to throw weapons with their remaining complement of attacks is a menace who should be banned?' I'm sorry, Mike, but I'm detecting a distinct moving of the goalposts here.
|
|
I'm sorry, Mike, but I'm detecting a distinct moving of the goalposts here.
While I question some of Mike's builds as to their likelihood and rules interpretation, I think is general concern is valid.
This looks like a fun, flavourful archetype for a home game, where the other characters and the GM can make adjustments for its drawbacks.
However, I don't think it fits in well in an Organized Play system where intra-party conflict is prohibited.
The Wild Rager is specifically designed with the potential of attacking his allies in any combat. That is the flaw that balances out the bonuses he gets later on.
I just don't think that flaw works well in a system where your allies and terrain may vary drastically between sessions. What happens when the character is mustered into a group of spellcasters and rogues for a shipboard scenario or sewer crawl? Or even in an adventure with a combat in a market crowded with NPCs?
Then there is the problem of in-game justification for this character to be a member of the Society.
And that is without the possiblility of someone coming up with a deliberately abusive build.
I like the archetype, but it's not appropriate for the campaign, IMO.
|
|
Warning or not, I still think its bad form for a player to choose a character that WILL attack party members and potentially kill them. The fact that its only a 25% chance per round is not really relevent. If the Wild Rager rolls that 25% chance for four consecutive rounds, it's a 100% chance that he's attacking me. Does that mean I get to attack him back or is that PvP? This just isn't what I'm looking for in OP.And I don't think the statistical likelihood of that happening is that prevalent, especially since a barbarian is not guaranteed to drop every enemy during every single encounter (as well as raging during all those encounters). Also, 25% chance per round is very relevant, especially in your example. For that to happen, it would have to be assumed you do nothing for 4 rounds and just sit there and take the hits because you're the nearest thing around (although why you wouldn't be running or full-round withdrawl is beyond me). Secondly, in order for that 25% chance to come up 4 consecutive times, that's a 1/16 (6.25%) chance of happening. And I'd say attacking him back is not PvP, and doing non-lethal is an even better idea (so when he drops his drop in Con won't kill him). Just treat it exactly as if an NPC is mind-controlling him.
Is there a potential from abuse? Yes, but I believe there are many situations that we haven't even spoken about that would fall in the same category with about the same likelihood of abuse. But the thing is, no one has experienced this situation in play, it's all based on hypotheticals and a negative perception being carried over from a different game (I mean, everyone has referred to 3.5, but no one has even done an analysis if the wording is similar - which I think would add a lot of weight behind enforcing pre-conceived negative opinions people have). But as it stands, I feel all the hubbub about this archetype falls more into the chicken little category.
/I would be very interested to read the class from 3.5 and see...
Not to mention, that when under a confusion condition, regardless of what they rolled on the confusion chart, if someone attacks them, they will attack their attacker.
|
|
And, at first level, there will be no real warning, IC, to the party that the Barb is acting odd. And no reason that a 5' step would limit his attacks, since he only gets one, so closest is going to be very important.False. There is a warning because the other PCs can make Sense Motive checks. And it actually doesn't matter because after the one attack, used to down take down the enemy, he has no other actions but maybe a maybe a move or a 5 foot step. But he has no other attacks at 1st level during this round. On the subsequent round, he is then under the affects of the confusion spell, which means he only has a 25% chance of attacking the nearest (N)PC.
Warning?
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.
Let's say it is a DC 15 as the range of possible actions is limited. After 1 minuet of seeing the barbarian either babbling incoherently, hurting himself and attacking the nearest targets I think I will be pretty sure he is confused.
To put it another way: sense motive don't work as you think it work.
Warning or not, I still think its bad form for a player to choose a character that WILL attack party members and potentially kill them. The fact that its only a 25% chance per round is not really relevent. If the Wild Rager rolls that 25% chance for four consecutive rounds, it's a 100% chance that he's attacking me. Does that mean I get to attack him back or is that PvP? This just isn't what I'm looking for in OP.And I don't think the statistical likelihood of that happening is that prevalent, especially since a barbarian is not guaranteed to drop every enemy during every single encounter (as well as raging during all those encounters). Also, 25% chance per round is very relevant, especially in your example. For that to happen, it would have to be assumed you do nothing for 4 rounds and just sit there and take the hits because you're the nearest thing around (although why you wouldn't be running or full-round withdrawl is beyond me). Secondly, in order for that 25% chance to come up 4 consecutive times, that's a 1/16 (6.25%) chance of happening. And I'd say attacking him back is not PvP, and doing non-lethal is an even better idea (so when he drops his drop in Con won't kill him). Just treat it exactly as if an NPC is mind-controlling him.
Remember that if attacked the confused character will always attack you the next round. So it is not easy to shut down a confused character.
It will cause the opposite effect most of the time, making it a 100% chance of him attacking the guy that tried to "shut" him down.|
|
True, but not accurate. A confused character will automatically attack someone who attacks him and also has a 25% chance to act normally (Barb Normal = Slaughter enemies). As long as your enemies are not clever enough to stand back, the rager will generally find an enemy to attack.The build is a bad ideas, either way, sicne you are ignoring some of the other, serious, downsides to the Wild Rager build:
Sure, it is only a 25% chance that he will attack in a COnfusion round, but that can be a bad thing, when there are more enemies left, and he is the parties only damage dealer....
Having your major source of damage stand around, twiddling his thumbs, is at least as likely to cause a TPK as him attacking a party member.
So, an intelligent enemy is going to attack the threat, in other words the rest of the party, not the idiot barbarian standing there twiddling his thumbs and gibbering.
25% of the time, the Barbarian will act normally.
25% of the time he is going to babble incoherently.
25% of the time he is going to hurt himself.
25% of the time he will attack the nearest creature.So, normally is good. But may still be sub-optimal, since there is a good chance that the barbarian won't have anyone near him, so he has to move and gets only a single attack.
Babble is bad. He has a good chance of not being able to do much in teh way of taking AoOs, given the provisions in the spell. As an intelligent enemy, even if he does get an AoO on me, I would probably move away, maybe even just withdraw from him.
Hurt himself? It adds his Str mod, so he could take himself out with as series of bad rolls. Any way you look at it, this is not good.
Attack nearest creature? Since he has already dropped the nearest enemy, this becomes highly situational.
As another player, I admit that I would be staying as far away from this character as possible. Nothing good can come from associating with him.
If he doesn't Rage, he gives up one of the...
True, but smart or not, an enemy isn't necessarily going to notice the Barbarian gibbering until the NEXT round after a failed roll, because on the round the Barbarian failed the roll, they just took down an enemy. The enemies are likely to attack the guy that just slaughtered an ally of theirs.
|
|
Warning?
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.
Let's say it is a DC 15 as the range of possible actions is limited. After 1 minuet of seeing the barbarian either babbling incoherently, hurting himself and attacking the nearest targets I think I will be pretty sure he is confused.
To put it another way: sense motive don't work as you think it work.
Actually, thank you for pointing out something that needs to be fixed in the Core Rules. A person can make a Bluff check in as little as 1 round, but your Sense Motive check requires you to stare at the person who just made the Bluff check for 1 minute before you can tell if they lied to you? Something tells me that the wording is off.
I guess if you're going by a strict rules interpretation of RAW as is, then yeah, I guess you're boned on that Sense Motive check. But I don't think RAI was meant for you to take a minute to tell if your party member is under any sort of enchantment (nor has any GM I've played under made the check take a minute, it has always been a like a passive Perception check). Like I said, they will typically have a glazed look in their eyes or some other element that will be a giveaway should the check succeed.
But regardless, is there potential for abuse? Yes. Has anyone here played / played with a Wild Rager Barbarian? No (and 3.5 PrC does not count). While these thought exercises are fun (for some, misery for most), I don't think there's enough here to outright ban the archetype. What I am seeing is a lot of negative pre-conceived notions carried over from 3.5, mixed with ideas for questionable builds, and assuming he's going to be dropping every enemy he comes across. Mountains out of molehills, I think. Actual playtesting is necessary at this point, because further discussion will be an exercise in futility.
/I apologize earlier. Rolling 4 consecutive 4's on a d4 is not a 1/16 chance, it is a 1/256 chance (or 0.4% - less than 1%).
|
|
Joseph's acknowledged this. The point he's trying to make is that a level 1 barbarian only has 1 attack in a round...
<snip>
You will note that I clearly state 'a level 1 barbarian' in my quoted post. I am not disputing the multiple attacks the barbarian receives at higher levels.
<snip>
OK, so now we're moving from 'a wild rager is a menace who should be banned' to 'a wild rager who is wielding a polearm and has somehow convinced his party wizard to enlarge him despite the obvious flaws in this plan and who also has Quick Draw and is willing to drop their two-handed melee weapon in the middle of a full attack in order to throw...
I'm sorry, Mike, but I'm detecting a distinct moving of the goalposts here.
In the first instance, why is the goalpost set on the equivalent of the 49th yardline (talking about the limitation of a barbarian archetype at 1st level when their huge benefit kicks in at 2nd)?
In the second instance, wizards aren't necessary (drinks 50gp potions), using polearms is a good technique for low-AC/high-STR characters (especially "opp/crit/trip-fishers" with fauchards), and lastly, a DM could determine that a confused character would drop a main weapon to throw other one if that was the only way to attack the next nearest target while in a lunatic frame-of-mind.
I.e., "For the remainder of the current turn, she attacks targets other than herself" means that's what she does, using any means at her disposal, including subjectively dis-optimal ones if they are the only available (and a DM could rule that she's not going to "wuss" to protect her allies by attacking with less than the most damaging piece of equipment in her arsenal -- i.e., no "I draw a copper piece and throw it as an improvised-weapon!" meta-gaming).
|
|
In the first instance, why is the goalpost set on the equivalent of the 49th yardline (talking about the limitation of a barbarian archetype at 1st level when their huge benefit kicks in at 2nd)?
In the second instance, wizards aren't necessary (drinks 50gp potions), using polearms is a good technique for low-AC/high-STR characters (especially "opp/crit/trip-fishers" with fauchards), and lastly, a DM could determine that a confused character would drop a main weapon to throw other one if that was the only to attack the next nearest target while in a lunatic frame-of-mind.
I.e., "For the remainder of the current turn, she attacks targets other than herself" means that's what she does, using any means at her disposal, including subjectively dis-optimal ones if they are the only available (and a DM could rule that she's not going to "wuss" to protect her allies by attacking with the less than the most damaging piece of equipment in her arsenal -- i.e., no "I draw a copper piece and throw it as an improvised-weapon!" meta-gaming).
If you are going to use football analogies, please get them right. Its the 49 yardline, not the 49th yardline. Your version might be more correct English, but it is not how its said in the NFL or College football.
Secondly, it says in confusion, that if the randomly rolled action cannot be taken, then they stand their gibbering.
So, what you are saying is that an enraged barbarian, which cannot make use of skills and some feats that need intelligence or wisdom, can suddenly use intelligent tactics because they are confused?
Huh?
Sorry, if they are holding a two handed weapon, and they cannot attack with it, for whatever reason, they might try to throw that particular weapon at the appropriate victim, but will in no way drop it to pull out a throwing weapon.
|
|
If you are going to use football analogies, please get them right. Its the 49 yardline, not the 49th yardline. Your version might be more correct English, but it is not how its said in the NFL or College football.
Andrew, if we're going to snipe at each other like mallrats swinging our sequined purses, permit me to dwell upon your sadly deficient grammar while you're dwelling upon my sadly deficient football terminology.
<momentary pause while both contestants round up their inner snark monsters and drag them back to their pens>
Secondly, it says in confusion, that if the randomly rolled action cannot be taken, then they stand their gibbering.*IF* the action cannot be taken. -- If a target can be reached with a thrown object, then can the action "attack targets" be taken? Yes, it can.
So, what you are saying is that an enraged barbarian, which cannot make use of skills and some feats that need intelligence or wisdom, can suddenly use intelligent tactics because they are confused?Throwing a weapon does not require intelligence. Quickdraw does not have an INT or WIS prerequisite. The DM could rule that any metagamy attempt by a player to mitigate the maximum possible destructive output of his combat-beast character does require intelligence, and nix it.
Sorry, if they are holding a two handed weapon, and they cannot attack with it, for whatever reason, they might try to throw that particular weapon at the appropriate victim, but will in no way drop it to pull out a throwing weapon.
<shrug>
Let's imagine the party is Hasted at mid-level, the Wild Rager has klonked one enemy with his first attack after not moving more than 5' (common situation the round after the party is surprised), then blows his will-save. He has two more attacks (Wild Fighting + Haste); assuming nobody is within melee reach, he would throw the weapon he's holding; then, if he has the feat, Quickdraw and throw another for the final attack. (If he has a bow, the DM could rule that he drops his melee weapon, Quickdraws the bow, and snaps off two shots which are not nerfed by -4 improvised penalties.)
|
|
I just don't think that flaw works well in a system where your allies and terrain may vary drastically between sessions. What happens when the character is mustered into a group of spellcasters and rogues for a shipboard scenario or sewer crawl? Or even in an adventure with a combat in a market crowded with NPCs?
I would say that it would be the same for a wizard or sorcerer with fireball and burning hands. There are situations where they will not be able to let loose their full abilities else causing unintended damage. All those situations also leave the spellcaster unable to throw out their powerful explosions without also burning their own party or innocent bystanders.
-
I'm presuming the player with the wild rager just isn't a jerk because there are avenues for dealing with disruptive players in PFS and if we were to judge every class by how big jerk someone could be playing it, I don't think we would get anywhere. Currently the assumption being forced in this thread is that the person is an absolutely irredeemable player who only seeks to disrupt the game and cause grief for the party.
If we presume that the wild rager is taking three attacks at an enemy that will go down with one, I think it would be similar to presume that a negative energy cleric would be channeling to hit the entire party just to take out that enemy's last hit point in another game. Pretty much the bulk of this threads argument is built on the idea that this wild rager player is making every possible choice to try and injure the party. If that is the case, it will be obvious that they are doing so and that their stay at the table/convention room should be pretty short.
|
|
This is one case where, IMO, you have to rule in favor of protecting the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS tenets and hold to a strict interpretation of PvP. Feel free to disagree, but after participating in dozens of conventions, and GM'ing 140+ tables, I have yet to see a GM let players cause direct damage to other players.
Based on numerous conversations with other GM's, VC's, and both former CC, I am 100% confident that my understanding of the intent of the rule is accurate. If it is determined that the strictest reading of the Guide allows for mis-interpretation, then I will consult Mark for a change in the next version.
As far as Confusion-like affects, I do not recall any NPC/monsters in scenarios that employed such tactics. But if they have, I suppose we need to clarify that as well (or ensure they never appear in scenarios).
Maybe you should actually come out to Chicago, then, Bob (by which I mean Chicago and Glen Ellyn, IL). Or Milwaukee (by which I mean West Allis, WI). I know I haven't judged 140+ sessions of PFS (I would need to add in other v3.5 OP campaigns to get there), but I have never forced a player to forgo a valid action that would benefit the party simply because a player character may also be adversely effected. Yes, usually there is a discussion of 'are you okay being in the radius of this spell?' or 'can your character take this?', and when the players come to an agreement, the judge doesn't then impose some self-created sense of what the rules of the game are in order to foster cooperation and fairness.
Because the players are cooperating. Because they have agreed to the course of action. Because the rules about PvP are to keep one player from bullying others with the threat of violence (I can kill your character) and to ensure that the party works towards the goal as a group, and not there to limit the effectiveness of party tactics that are assumed in the mechanics of the game.
Let me give you an example of the situation that needs to be avoided that isn't PvP. In high-level v3.5 play, a party is underground in a lair that prohibits extra-dimensional movement. Emerging from a tunnel into a large room, they see four huge (CR 22) creatures. The monk goes first and maneuvers out to protect the rest of the party as they come into the room. The psion goes next and puts up a Wall of Ectoplasm that separates the party from the monk (trapping the party in the tunnel). The monk is quickly disabled by the monsters while the party waits for the psion to remove the obstacle (they had no means of dismissing it). It isn't PvP, and it is bad tactics. But it was a tactic that not only misunderstood the need of the group (to get into the room), it kept three of the players from being able to do anything meaningful for a round and sacrificed a player character for no reason. It was the type of action that I, as a judge, would more likely disallow than a spellcaster receiving permission to include an ally within the effects of a harmful spell.
I have both played in and run PFS mods where confusion (the spell) and confusion (as an effect) were employed by the NPCs, one of them just last night. It is entirely possible that you haven't played or run either mod, but they do exist.
|
|
Warning?
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you.
Let's say it is a DC 15 as the range of possible actions is limited. After 1 minuet of seeing the barbarian either babbling incoherently, hurting himself and attacking the nearest targets I think I will be pretty sure he is confused.
To put it another way: sense motive don't work as you think it work.
Actually, thank you for pointing out something that needs to be fixed in the Core Rules. A person can make a Bluff check in as little as 1 round, but your Sense Motive check requires you to stare at the person who just made the Bluff check for 1 minute before you can tell if they lied to you? Something tells me that the wording is off.
I guess if you're going by a strict rules interpretation of RAW as is, then yeah, I guess you're boned on that Sense Motive check. But I don't think RAI was meant for you to take a minute to tell if your party member is under any sort of enchantment (nor has any GM I've played under made the check take a minute, it has always been a like a passive Perception check). Like I said, they will typically have a glazed look in their eyes or some other element that will be a giveaway should the check succeed.
Why you compare "resisting" to someone using bluff on you to studding the comportment of someone to see if he acting strangely?
The first use of Sense motive is reactive to resist the effect of another ability, the second is active to discern if something is strange and require more time.There is nothing strange in the time request for the non reactive use of the skill. If you want to see if someone is acting strangely you need time.
For a wild rager being in a rage is normal behaviour for him. Trying to see if he is acting strangely (and in all honesty being overcome by blood-lust and killing indiscriminately is not behaving strangely for him) when in a rage isn't easy and will not require a fast check of how bloodshot are his eyes.
|
|
.
Secondly, it says in confusion, that if the randomly rolled action cannot be taken, then they stand their gibbering.*IF* the action cannot be taken. -- If a target can be reached with a thrown object, then can the action "attack targets" be taken? Yes, it can.So, what you are saying is that an enraged barbarian, which cannot make use of skills and some feats that need intelligence or wisdom, can suddenly use intelligent tactics because they are confused?Throwing a weapon does not require intelligence. Quickdraw does not have an INT or WIS prerequisite. The DM could rule that any metagamy attempt by a player to mitigate the maximum possible destructive output of his combat-beast character does require intelligence, and nix it.Sorry, if they are holding a two handed weapon, and they cannot attack with it, for whatever reason, they might try to throw that particular weapon at the appropriate victim, but will in no way drop it to pull out a throwing weapon.<shrug>
Let's imagine the party is Hasted at mid-level, the Wild Rager has klonked one enemy with his first attack after not moving more than 5' (common situation the round after the party is surprised), then blows his will-save. He has two more attacks (Wild Fighting + Haste); assuming nobody is within melee reach, he would throw the weapon he's holding; then, if he has the feat, Quickdraw and throw another for the final attack....
We disagree completely. When confused, if you don't have a weapon in hand, you start attacking with your bare hands.
Perhaps that's my interpretation of the spell, but there won't be any crazy tactics or special strategic optimization of maneuvers when both raged and confused at my table.
|
|
I'm presuming the player with the wild rager just isn't a jerk because there are avenues for dealing with disruptive players in PFS and if we were to judge every class by how big jerk someone could be playing it, I don't think we would get anywhere. Currently the assumption being forced in this thread is that the person is an absolutely irredeemable player who only seeks to disrupt the game and cause grief for the party.If we presume that the wild rager is taking three attacks at an enemy that will go down with one, I think it would be similar to presume that a negative energy cleric would be channeling to hit the entire party just to take out that enemy's last hit point in another game. Pretty much the bulk of this threads argument is built on the idea that this wild rager player is making every possible choice to try and injure the party. If that is the case, it will be obvious that they are doing so and that their stay at the table/convention room should be pretty short.
While the wild rager probably will not be a total jerk, he almost certainly will be a player that care more for build that allow him to deliver more damage and get more attacks than for any other consideration. If that wasn't the situation he would not have chosen a wild rager to begin with.
The archetype appeal is the capability to deliver 2 attacks at level 2 possibly without spending rounds of rage and the ability at level 5 to convert (with a successful will ST) a mind affecting effect to rage+confusion.
A guy like that will almost certainly dump most of his characteristics (hopefully not wisdom) to pump strength and constitution and I doubt he will take particular care in not injuring his party members.
A wild rager isn't a optimal character to run Pathfinder missions, so if someone is choosing one simply for the raw damage potential he has and will pump that potential to the max.
We disagree completely. When confused, if you don't have a weapon in hand, you start attacking with your bare hands.Perhaps that's my interpretation of the spell, but there won't be any crazy tactics or special strategic optimization of maneuvers when both raged and confused at my table.
"Nice" interpretation but decidedly far fetched. I could accept it if the target was a couch potato that never used a weapon, not when the target is a combatant whose automatic reaction is reaching for a weapon.
|
|
1. Because you brought up RAW time limits. RAW makes no distinction in time between using Sense Motive for an opposed Bluff check or a Sense Motive to see if someone is under an enchantment.
2. I hope you're not working in any emergency reaction setting. If you think minute is a fair amount of time to to get a grasp on an individual's status, whoever you're trying to help is boned.
|
|
1. Because you brought up RAW time limits. RAW makes no distinction in time between using Sense Motive for an opposed Bluff check or a Sense Motive to see if someone is under an enchantment.
2. I hope you're not working in any emergency reaction setting. If you think minute is a fair amount of time to to get a grasp on an individual's status, whoever you're trying to help is boned.
Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent's Sense Motive skill.
I should repeat it?
You are confusing a reactive use of a skill with a active use.
Actually, thank you for pointing out something that needs to be fixed in the Core Rules. A person can make a Bluff check in as little as 1 round, but your Sense Motive check requires you to stare at the person who just made the Bluff check for 1 minute before you can tell if they lied to you? Something tells me that the wording is off.
This is almost but not quite correct.
To use any of the three uses listed in the Sense Motive description takes at least 1 minute. These uses are:
Hunch: This use of the skill involves making a gut assessment of the social situation. You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong, such as when you're talking to an impostor. Alternatively, you can get the feeling that someone is trustworthy.
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
Discern Secret Message: You may use Sense Motive to detect that a hidden message is being transmitted via the Bluff skill. In this case, your Sense Motive check is opposed by the Bluff check of the character transmitting the message. For each piece of information relating to the message that you are missing, you take a –2 penalty on your Sense Motive check. If you succeed by 4 or less, you know that something hidden is being communicated, but you can't learn anything specific about its content. If you beat the DC by 5 or more, you intercept and understand the message. If you fail by 4 or less, you don't detect any hidden communication. If you fail by 5 or more, you might infer false information.
Determining whether or not the guy you are talking to you is lying to you is an entirely different case. Lying is encompassed in the Bluff skill, which calls for a Bluff check opposed by his target's Sense Motive skill.
Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.
Because attempting to lie or bluff someone is an opposed check, you cannot succeed on it until your target makes his check. Since your action for the check is a standard action, your opponent rolls his opposition to the check as part of that action. So if you attempt to yell, "Look! The goodyear blimp!", you and your opponent both roll to determine who wins the opposed roll.
Feinting is an interesting special case where if your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the rules act like he gets to take 10 on the check. (The DC is 10+Opponent's Sense Motive Bonus if he is trained, otherwise it is 10+Opponent's BAB+Opponent's WIS mod - acting somewhat like the training in combat gives your opponent an inherent ability to notice feints.)
So. Figuring out is something hinkey is going on around you - that's one minute. Determining that the goblin is lying to you about being a halfling child - that's an opposed roll when he tells the lie.
So yes, it takes a minute to sense that one of your party is under some sort of enchantment, barring obvious things like "Yes master...I will...kill them...all!!!!".
On the other hand, a person attempting to bluff you must immediately roll a check opposed by his target's Sense Motive skill.
Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent's Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie. The following modifiers are applied to the roll of the creature attempting to tell the lie. Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
|
|
We disagree completely. When confused, if you don't have a weapon in hand, you start attacking with your bare hands.
Perhaps that's my interpretation of the spell, but there won't be any crazy tactics or special strategic optimization of maneuvers when both raged and confused at my table.
Some DMs will see the Confused text phrasing of "...it attacks the creature...until that creature is dead or out of sight...", and within the context of Uncontrolled Rage rule that a Wild Raging character in "attack mode" will employ ranged weapons if they have them and they are necessary to deliver remaining unused attacks. ("'Confused' does not necessarily mean 'incompetent'," they might say.)
It's a gray-area obviously subject to DM interpretation.
<nod toward Diego Rossi's interpretation>
I'm presuming the player with the wild rager just isn't a jerk because there are avenues for dealing with disruptive players in PFS and if we were to judge every class by how big jerk someone could be playing it, I don't think we would get anywhere. Currently the assumption being forced in this thread is that the person is an absolutely irredeemable player who only seeks to disrupt the game and cause grief for the party.
The player has chosen to run a character whose primary feature is having to make lots of will saves (in a class which advances them slowly) and then indiscriminately attack the closest thing if they fail, then be Confused on succeeding rounds. -- Even if he somehow by the grace of Gorum managed to level his juggernaut to 12th without ever once attacking (let alone killing) a PC, how exactly is he being useful to the group when he's Confused half the time? Is there a single other class/archetype/whatever in all of the splatbooks which is self-penalized whenever it is successful at what it is expected to be doing by the rest of the table?
But one doesn't have to presume that the player making a Wild Rager is deliberately being a jerk. That, in fact, is irrelevant. -- The class archetype itself is irresponsible as-written. They're Lenny in Of Mice and Men sputtering "I didn't mean it..." while standing over the broken body of a little girl.
If we presume that the wild rager is taking three attacks at an enemy that will go down with one,How is he supposed to know how many attacks it will take? It could be a tough opponent, but he rolls max or gets a crit. Or, different situation, he's next after an adjacent ally klonked the BBEM with a crit and it's now scrapping on one good fingernail -- will he decide he's not going to do anything on his turn except withdraw because he doesn't want to hurt his buddy after the easy kill? The archetype is not only useless but downright detrimental to a cooperative effort.
I think it would be similar to presume that a negative energy cleric would be channeling to hit the entire party just to take out that enemy's last hit point in another game.
A negative energy-channeling cleric doesn't have a class feature requiring he risk going nuts every time he drops an opponent.
|
|
But one doesn't have to presume that the player making a Wild Rager is deliberately being a jerk. That, in fact, is irrelevant. -- The class archetype itself is irresponsible as-written. They're Lenny in Of Mice and Men sputtering "I didn't mean it..." while standing over the broken body of a little girl.
Cute comparison. But since I am currently running a game for a wild rager, I know how wrong that assessment is. He is 8th level, running fine and over the course of three sessions has successfully managed not to attack a single party member a single time.
I find your comparisions and accusations that you level at his character to be inaccurate.